Re: Dennis on Glen (was Hebrew and Arabic)

Glen you wrote to my point

> >Glen Sumerian was not spoken in Central Mesopotamia.
>
> I'm sure you mean that _Hurrian_ wasn't spoken in Central

Mesopotamia (until

> later historical times perhaps), which would be a correct

statement.

It is generally accepted that Hurrian was the language of the Halaf
culture in Mesopotamia. Do an internet search on Halaf and you may
find the references. It seems that the Halafians began as obsidian
traders from the region of Lake Van, and spread their destinctive
high
quality pottery throughout Syria, Eastern Turkey and Northern Iraq in
the period shown by the maps. Read Georges Roux on Ancient Iraq for
evidence of the presence of Hurrians in Central and even south
Mesopotamia in early dynastic times. On the Zagros tribes and their
linguistic affiliations - (the Subartu, Lullabi, Kassites and others)
read the Cambridge Ancient History, I think it is Vol II(a) from
memory.

> Since
> you confuse NWC with NEC, have suggested a ludicrously late date

for

> Proto-Semitic and have made other blunt errors on your map in terms

of

> placement and time, your arguement is falling on deaf ears.
>
> >Akkadian was spoken in Kish, so that the first Dynasty of Kish all
> >have Akkadian (not sumerian) names, Akkadian was also spoken
> >therefore in Southern Mesopotamia,
>
> Of course. Akkadian, coming from the north and west, held its grip

and

> became popular. EncBritt mentions that Sumerian was either

endangered or

> practically moribund by 2000 BCE.

True, but Sumerian never was the major language further north than
Kish. It was the major language of all segments of the population
only south of this region. Everywhere else it was a superstratum
language only imposed since the Uruk phase with the cultural
dominance
of Sumerian civilisation. It was never the language of the common
folk.

> >Hurrian is, even you agree, a NE Caucasian language.
>
> What books do you read at all. One can state that Hurrian is

_related_ to

> NEC, while _not_ part of the NEC family, and get away with it. Your

claim is

> far more contraversial and not generally accepted.

For this reason I have given it a different colour

John